<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>City Desk &#187; time inc.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/tag/time-inc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk</link>
	<description>68.3 Square Miles of D.C. News and Opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:36:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Long Live Entertainment Weekly!</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/01/07/long-live-entertainment-weekly/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/01/07/long-live-entertainment-weekly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:39:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tricia Olszewski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pop Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment Weekly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time inc.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=13110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite layoffs aplenty and rumors that it may starting swinging exclusively online, Entertainment Weekly will continue to be published by Time Inc., according to Gawker.
Whew. My reaction to the news that Time might kill the mag's dead-tree edition went something like this: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Go ahead, knock it all you want. EW may be drivel, but it's [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite layoffs aplenty and rumors that it may starting swinging <a href="http://gawker.com/5107648/entertainment-weekly-considering-going-online+only">exclusively online</a>, <i><strong>Entertainment Weekly</strong></i> will continue to be published by Time Inc., according to <a href="http://gawker.com/5125119/entertainment-weekly-lives">Gawker</a>.</p>
<p>Whew. My reaction to the news that Time might kill the mag's dead-tree edition went something like this: <i>Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!</i></p>
<p>Go ahead, knock it all you want. <i>EW</i> may be drivel, but it's my favorite kind of drivel, and I want it <em>in my hands</em> every night &#8212; er, I'm a slow reader &#8212; soothing my tired eyes and brain after a long day of staring at the infernal computer.</p>
<p>Not to mention that sometimes, on not-so-great weeks, I kinda like learning that I'm not the only critic who thought that, say, <i>Choke</i> was a pretty good movie. (Go <a href="http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20228529,00.html">Owen</a>!)</p>
<p>I've been burned by Time's promises before, though. (Anyone want a case of <em>Songs 4 Worship</em> cassettes, liner notes edited by yours truly?) But until that dark day when I discover I need to log on to read the Hit List, I'll cherish every issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/01/07/long-live-entertainment-weekly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

